Too Hard-headed For Their Own Good - The Pro-Life Movement - We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate

Too Hard-headed For Their Own Good - The Pro-Life Movement

Rating: 1 after 1 vote

Posted by Sir Andrew on May 7, 2008 at 1:51pm

Before I begin this little piece, I want you to know that I am pro-choice (I will explain this term later)

People in the Pro-Life movement just don't get it.

For example, Mike Huckabee said when he was still running for President that he would fight for a national ban on abortion, that there's "no state's rights for moral issues like abortion". What Mike Huckabee doesn't understand is that his argument tore the country apart 150 years ago and caused the bloodiest war this country has ever seen - the Civil War. Pro-lifers love to argue that "a house divided cannot stand" and other such arguments that sound moralistic but really aren't.

Why are they not moralistic, you ask? Simple- morality requires that we choose to do the right thing. Some minority that whines and complains about something and hijacks the political process for their cause is not doing the right thing. In fact, it's the very thing that created this issue in the first place- a woman wanted an abortion, so she sued the state of Texas and a court of 9 judges decided the social policy for the whole country. Now, a group wants to outlaw abortion on the national level using only 500 congressmen.

Let's stop and do the math here- you must have 2/3 of congress approve an amendment. That kind of super-majority will realistically never happen. But if we simply put the issue back to the states, abortion would be either banned or partially banned in nearly 30 states. Now, which goal is the most realistic and will save more lives NOW? The states, obviously.

As I stated before, I consider myself "pro-choice". And by "pro-choice", I mean that states should have the right to choose whether or not their state will legalize abortion. Unlike these national "ban it all"s, I want people to debate this issue. I want our society to choose to outlaw an evil for its own betterment. If national pro-lifers are so confident in their ideas, then why don't they feel comfortable opening the issue up to the people to debate and decide? I have confidence that my ideas will win in the debate, because ultimately, unlike them, I know and believe that I have the moral position- and that the people of this country can be won over.

Tags: rights, federalism, pro-life, feminism, abortion, activism, pro-choice, states, conservatism

5 Comments

Comment by carol hamel on May 7, 2008 at 7:23pm: You said "I want our society to choose to outlaw an evil for its own betterment." What exactly do you mean? Are you saying that abortion is 'evil'?

Comment by CPD on May 12, 2008 at 4:59pm: I think an argument for states' rights is typically a strong one. I read in Reason magazine, a staunchly Libertarian publication and a well argued one at that, last Summer that this is the strongest argument for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which has made this a federal matter. Also, curious to know where did you get your figure about nearly 30 states banning or partially banning abortion? And You seem to say that it is both not a moral issue, as framed by such politicians as Mike Huckabee, then you say that you have the moral position. So which is it?

Another approach would be to go the Hume way with it and see the issue as a utilitarian one, which is admittedly rather cold when dealing with what is on the human level a very personal and emotionally difficult choice for any woman. Let's give it a shot, though, to see what the reactions are. Many women in every state have gotten abortions because they don't believe themselves fit at any given time to properly care for a child. If the child were born who knows what would befall it? It might be brought into a single parent household; the mother might not be able to support it and need, gasp, governmental support; it might be neglected and not be given the chance at a proper education, job, support, etc. The mother's decision might well have been a painful but rational choice. But it is her choice. Which doesn't mean that it isn't someone else's choice not to get an abortion if their religion, concept of morality, or whatever leads them to their decision. What I'm saying is that if my buddy and his girlfriend choose not to get an abortion for any of these reasons that is perfectly fine with me, but if my girlfriend or future daughter or sister does decide that it is the prudent thing to do, then I'll be damned if my buddy tries to stop her. This seems to be a rational approach that we should be able to live with.

Comment by Sir Andrew on June 13, 2008 at 11:01pm: Yes, the Roe v. Wade (and others, like Doe v. Bolton) made abortion a national issue, which is why it's immoral. The pro-life argument to demand that abortion be prohibited on a national level is no different than the Supreme Court legalizing abortion in the first place.

Comment by Sir Andrew on June 13, 2008 at 11:09pm: I remember hearing something about the 30 states thing a while ago, but I may be wrong about the exact figure. NARAL has a list of regulations state-by-state here:

http://naral.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/maps-and-charts/

Comment by Dave Justus on June 16, 2008 at 9:42am: Generally speaking, I agee with you. However, if one does take the position that abortion is a moral evil similar to slavery (which is a plausible argument) then I would have to agree with Huckabee that state's rights isn't a valid argument.

Now, if we take that step, then we have to determine what remedy is required. There is of course ample precedent for this being a supreme court decision. Roe v. Wade of course relied heavily on the 14th amendment for that, and courld use it instead to require that the unborn be granted protection from the loss of life. Simarly, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, Congress could also use similar powers.

Of course a contitutional amendment would suffice as well, but if the congress already has power in this area, then it is not required. This is an issue you didn't address in your post. Certainly abortion foes who consider it to be a great moral wrong have every right to promote that view. They are also justified in promoting the view that a consitutional ammendment is not required for federal regulation of abortion.